Jefferson Morley's press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation (MFF) on December 6th 2022 during which he falsely claimed to have "smoking gun" proof of a "CIA operation involving Lee Harvey Oswald" has resulted in media reports that are misleading at best. This article will set the record straight.
Newsweek reported on the press conference with the headline "New Documents Shed Light on CIA's Connection to Lee Harvey Oswald." The article says that Morley and his colleagues at Mary Ferrell "have unearthed proof [JFK's] alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was involved in an operation by the CIA". The article also suggested that there was a single document that was key in this matter and that it was "obtained this month as the result of an October lawsuit..."
Here are the facts. Morley has no "smoking gun" or other proof of an "Oswald Operation." He merely has suspicions. The document featured most prominently by Morley has been in his possession since 2004 according to his eBook Morley v. CIA. This document, which was obtained by Morley through FOIA requests, is highly redacted and only proves that his favorite CIA villain George Joannides was cleared for "special intelligence." Morley believes, but has not proven, that this CIA term always refers to intelligence obtained through wiretaps. And he has his theories about Joannides and wiretaps that include the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and Mexico City.
Not only is Morley's key document not new, but it is a fact that there are no "new" documents of any kind despite Newsweek claiming there were "several" that had been "obtained this month." Lawrence Schnapf, who moderated the press conference and was co-counsel on the litigation mentioned by Newsweek, told me via email that "No records have been released as a result of the MFF complaint filed in October."
Morley suspects that 44 unreleased documents from the Joannides file will support his theory. But he does not know that. How could he when he has never seen those documents? Morley says that he has witnesses who will support his theory. But he neither presented nor named the alleged witnesses at the press conference. And as anyone who has studied the assassination knows, there are all sorts of individuals who say all sorts of things for any number of reasons. But they are not all telling the truth. So, any claims by a witness would not constitute "smoking gun" proof of an "Oswald Operation."
Additionally, the ARRB reviewed the documents in question back in the nineties and determined that they were "general" in nature and contained "no information relevant to the assassination." While the analyst, Michelle Combs, may not be as steeped in assassination lore as Morley is, she would undoubtedly be able to recognize an operation that targeted the FPCC in New Orleans even if Oswald was not mentioned by name.
One of the many claims by Morley from the press conference that are speculative or false involves a "legend" he says was created by the CIA and their DRE charges that painted Oswald as a Castro supporter. But Oswald's wife Marina as well as his uncle and a friend in the Marine Corps, Nelson Delgado, all knew of Oswald's pro-Castro leanings. In Delgado's case Oswald's pro-Castro pronouncements could be traced back as far as December of 1958 before the bearded leader had even assumed power.
Another claim concerns a medal that Joannides received from the CIA after "stonewalling" investigators. But Morley knows that the medal was for career service and the proof is at his own site. The first sentence of the citation reads "In recognition of his exceptional achievement with the Central Intelligence Agency for more than twenty-eight years."
Finally, it should be mentioned that Morley is calling for the release of the 44 documents on December 15th which is the deadline set by President Biden to either release records or continue to postpone. But the documents Morley is talking about are not part of the JFK Records Collection and it is unclear through what mechanism they could be released.
To sum up, Morley claims there is smoking gun proof of an "Oswald Operation" in documents that he has not seen. And he is calling for the release of those documents even though he knows that is highly unlikely since they are not a part of the JFK collection and the CIA fought their release (through a Morley lawsuit) for years.
UPDATE: The latest is this. Morley is claiming on Twitter that the ARRB did not see the entire Joannides file. In support of this idea, he posts a link to a letter from Tunheim to Biden:
There is a grain of truth in what Morley says. The ARRB may not have had the complete file. For example, Joannides worked in Vietnam in the seventies and that was not relevant to the assassination so they may not have looked at it. But they had everything that Morley was interested in with the possible exception of documents from the period 1980-81. Morley likely wants to see that portion of the file due to his continuing obcession with Joannides' Career Intelligence Medal.
On the other hand, Tunheim says "we had the [relevant] file on George Joannides..." He also says that the board "would have released the file in full" had they known who Joannides was. This implies they had all of the Joannides documents that were relevant to the assassination (1961-64 and 1978-79). But, admittedly, there is some ambiguity.
Morley also says there is a mechinism in place for the release of the 44 Joannides files even though they are not a part of the JFK Collection. This is a "Memorandum of Understand" that allows for files to be placed in the JFK Collection after the ARRB ceased to exist. But as far as I can see, this would have to be done by Biden who would have to hear the pleas of Morley and Tunheim and specifically act to place those records in the collection and release them.
Hi, Tracy - Perhaps a minor point, but the National Press Club is often used to give a veneer of significance to nonsense. The NPC is a public forum, available for hire by pretty muvh anyone, whose site refers to hosting some 2000 "events" annually. It has been a favorite of the UFO community, occasionally for an event of some significance but also for lunatic-fringe nonsense. Insofar as I can tell, the Morley "event" had the same fate as most UFO events - scant attendance by serious journalists or the mainstream media. It reminds me of my days on the Education Forum, where some JFK conspiracy tome was touted as having been "nominated for a Pulitzer Prize." I discovered that anyone can nominate any book for a Pulitzer Prize, and that in this case the author had nominated his own book to give it the veneer of significance! If Morley and his fellow conspiracy loons actually had anything of genuine significance, a serious journalist or historian from a serious, reputable publication or institution would be delighted to sit down with them and break the story. As always - always, always, always - the conspiracy loons posit a reinvented Lee Harvey Oswald who is completely at odds with what his entire life showed him to be and everyone who actually knew him knew him to be. - Lance P.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Lance and I agree with all of it. By one count there were six people in the audience. BTW, if you ever want to come back to JFK research, we could always use a good man.
DeleteIt seem to me as well that any serious or semi-serious journalist/scholar/historian alleging what Morley does would not do so in this sort of open forum, would not present it in such a "raw" form. He would present the evidence quietly, allow a type of peer review process involving pro- and anti-conspiracy figures (and others) to examine it, have an exchange back-and-forth with those people and present a finished product.
DeleteBut this conference is what historian Daniel Boorstin called a "pseudo-event"; an event designed solely for media publicity and not for a rigorous examination of information. Morley is a ex-newsman. He knows how to sell a story, how to get publicity, how to entice reporters to publish a story. Story telling. This is an example of it.
100 percent correct Steve and thank you for the comment.
DeleteTo be fair and in his defense he's mostly (not entirely) pushing for a release of documents, for Biden/WH to release them. So he's not presenting a finished product, a complete story since these additional documents are needed. He's arguing in part that we need these documents to prove or not prove what I claim.
DeleteBut he is also making specific claims - not just allegations - that are not supported by any additional evidence. He's very sloppy with this stuff.